serial_set_dtr

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool's effect ('Set DTR line state') and a common use case ('device reset'), but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether this is a read/write operation (implied write from 'Set'), potential side effects (e.g., interrupting serial communication), permission requirements, or error handling. For a tool that likely modifies hardware state, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is highly concise with two sentences: the first states the core function, and the second provides practical context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with clear schema support.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (hardware control with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits behavioral details (e.g., what happens on error, if changes are reversible), output expectations, and fails to fully guide usage relative to siblings. For a tool that may affect device state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('connection_id', 'state') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of typical 'state' values for reset scenarios). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Set DTR line state') and the resource ('Data Terminal Ready line'), with a specific purpose ('Used for device reset on many boards'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'serial_set_rts' by focusing on DTR rather than RTS, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated from other control tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for device reset scenarios, providing some context ('on many boards'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'serial_reset_device' or 'serial_set_rts'. No prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active connection) or exclusions are stated, leaving usage somewhat open to interpretation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.